MOUNT HOLLY – An appeals court has ruled DNA evidence described as “extraordinarily important” can be used as evidence against a man accused of a double shooting at a Willingboro VFW post.

The DNA, found on a pair of eyeglasses at the crime scene, matched a sample taken from Brandon M. Washington of Trenton, who allegedly shot two men ejecting him from the Creekview Road post in February 2017.

The victims survived and Washington is charged with two counts of attempted murder.

In its appeal, the prosecutor’s office said the DNA was vital to its case because Washington was not arrested at the scene, the gun was never recovered and no video showed the shooting.

Cook initially barred the DNA from evidence as a penalty after the New Jersey State Police took more than eight months to produce a report on its analysis. Cook later rejected a reconsideration request from the prosecutor’s office.

The eyeglasses and DNA samples from Washington and the victims were submitted to the state police lab on March 2 of last year. A lab report reached the prosecutor’s office on Nov. 16, less than two weeks before the scheduled trial date.

The report, delayed by staffing issues during a review process at the state lab, found Washington was “the source of the major DNA profile” on the glasses.

But Cook then granted a defense motion to bar the DNA from evidence as a “discovery sanction.”

According to Friday’s decision, the trial judge found Washington should have been given a draft report prepared by a state police lab scientist on July 25. Cook said the prosecutor’s office had violated a court rule that requires it to share scientific evidence within its “possession, custody or control.”

The appeals court rejected that view, saying the county prosecutor’s office “has no supervisory authority over" the lab and did not possess the report until Nov. 16. The prosecutor’s office emailed the report to Washington’s attorney that same day.

The three-judge panel also found Cook had made a “palpably incorrect assumption that the draft report was a final report.”

And it said Cook failed to consider whether exclusion of the DNA evidence would affect the fairness of a trial, noting the prosecution had described it as “extraordinarily important.”

Among other findings, the appellate ruling also directed Cook to grant a 60-day continuance that had been requested by the prosecutor’s office.